0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thanks KrypidSo you agree that they don't measured directly the inflow.This article is actually based on assumptions:"If θ ∼ 1 as typically assumed""assuming that the magnetic field is near equipartition,""With this upper limit, assuming that ri ∼ 102 rs we can infer s > 0.6""where PBondi is assumed to have a 10% efficiency of the Bondi mass accretion rate""The dashed circle around Sgr A* marks its Bondi capture radius (assumed to be 400)""..assuming collisional ionization equilibrium""..because the measurement then depends sensitively on the assumed thermal plasma model"" The best-fit model gives γ = 1.9(1.4, 2.4). If θ ∼ 1 as typically assumed.
If we will assume that (θ ∼ 1) is incorrect, does it mean that our assumption is correct or incorrect?Sorry - is it about science, or assumption game?
Are they looking to find the real understanding about our galaxy or they just wish to fit the current mainstream to the observations against all odes.So, would you agree to say: "They had to model it based on spectral assumption"?
Let me offer the following articles from the same arxiv:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.5443.pdf"In regions close to the black hole, the AGN outflows are revealed through blueshifted absorption lines in X–ray emission (Pounds et al. 2003a, b; King 2010a). Tombesi et al. (2010a, b) show that they are present in more than 35 percent of a sample of over 50 local AGN, and deduce that their solid angles are large (certainly > 0.6 × 2π, and probably greater). The observed absorption columns imply that in many cases the outflows are quite recent (few years), suggesting that outflows are an almost ubiquitous feature of central black hole activity (King 2010b)"
We assume that Sgr A* outflow either carries with it CR protons created near the black hole, or that the CR protons are accelerated on shock fronts where the outflow runs into the interstellar medium.
If instead we assume that the gamma–ray lobes were produced in this event, we must conclude that the energy–driven outflow is still proceeding, with a mean velocity hvi ≃1000 km s−1 over its lifetime.
Our model is similar to that of Crocker & Aharonian (2011) in terms of assuming the CR protons (rather than electrons) produce the observed gamma-ray emission.
They further consider a quasi–steady state model in which the CR protons are continuously injected by supernova explosions.
Within this model, then, in galaxies with large σ>∼ 150 km s−1, Eddington outflows tend to sweep the vicinity of the hole clear of gas of density (2) and prevent further accretion and growth, establishing the M−σ relation for the black hole mass (King 2003; 2005).
For the present day Milky Way and directions well out of the Galactic plane, we expect fg to be significantly less than fc, so we parametrize fg as fg = 1.6 · 10−3 f0.01, where f0.01 ∼ 1 is a dimensionless free parameter of the model.
In the following article (from arxiv):https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1501/1501.07664.pdf"Wind from the black-hole accretion disk driving a molecular outflow in an active galaxy""Recent observations of large-scale molecular outflows3,4,5,6,7,8 in ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) have provided the evidence to support these studies, as they directly trace the gas out of which stars form.So, now they claim that the outflow wind from the BH (or SMBH) drives the star formation activity.
The efficiency f = 0.2 is assumed.
We model the broad absorption at E ~ 9 keV with the XSTAR31 code v. 2.2.1bn. We consider a Γ = 2 power-law continuum, consistent with the observed value (see SI), and standard Solar abundances. A turbulent velocity of 30,000 km s−1 is assumed for the fast wind model.
This equation assumes a spherical, but clumpy, geometry.
We derive a physical characterization of this outflow using a dedicated photoionization absorption model (see Methods).
Like I said, assumptions are often unavoidable if we cannot directly observe something
However, they have only found OUTFLOWS. Not even a single word about inflow.
I have also found a very interesting article:http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdfPlease look at the page before the last oneIt is stated:"Innermost highly ionized wind launched from within 100 Rg (1016 cm) ofblack hole – ultra fast iron K absorption (0.3c)"
This proves my understanding that the matter is originally ejected from the BH.
the accretion disc is located far away.
Now you need to adjust the theory in order to explain how could it be that a SMBH ejects matter (or outflow wind) directly from its core.
As I have offered in my theory.
Some of that matter might get into the accretion disc. If so, this is the ultimate matter source for the accretion disc - As I have offered in my theory.
In any case in both articles they only discuss about outflows and this is a solid proof that SMBH is ejecting matter outwards.
016 centimeters is equal to 1011 kilometers. The black hole in PG1211+143 has a mass of 4 x 107 solar masses. That corresponds to an event horizon radius of about 1.18 x 108 kilometers. That, in turn, means that the outflows are originating about 9.99 x 1010 kilometers out from the event horizon, which is a distance almost 17 times greater than the average distance between the Sun and Pluto.
"The Suzaku view of highly ionized outflows in AGN"https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/430/1/60/983995"Measured outflow velocities span a continuous range from <1500 km s−1 up to ∼100 000 km s−1, with mean and median values of ∼0.1 c and ∼0.056 c,""Observational evidence for outflows and winds in active galactic nuclei (AGN) is seen in multiple energy regimes, "
Quote from: Kryptid1016 centimeters is equal to 1011 kilometers. The black hole in PG1211+143 has a mass of 4 x 107 solar masses. That corresponds to an event horizon radius of about 1.18 x 108 kilometers. That, in turn, means that the outflows are originating about 9.99 x 1010 kilometers out from the event horizon, which is a distance almost 17 times greater than the average distance between the Sun and Pluto. Do you have any idea about the radius of the accretion disc in that AGN?The inwards radius and the outwards radius?
1016 centimeters is equal to 1011 kilometers. The black hole in PG1211+143 has a mass of 4 x 107 solar masses. That corresponds to an event horizon radius of about 1.18 x 108 kilometers. That, in turn, means that the outflows are originating about 9.99 x 1010 kilometers out from the event horizon, which is a distance almost 17 times greater than the average distance between the Sun and Pluto.
In any case, do you agree that we clearly see outflow from that AGN?
Now, let's go back to that unrealistic article from arxiv which tries to confirm an inflow:
So, how could it be that NASA Chandra observations see only OUTFLOW jets (in our SMBH and in many others), while arxiv (which is based on the same data from NASA Chandra observations) see suddenly Inflow?
Is it real???Can you please show one real detector/observation that see inflow?Even only one real inflow please.
Nowhere does it say that the observations saw only outflow. The outflow is what they were concentrating on. The inflow has a different signature and that signature was always there
Evan and I both pointed to articles about the event last May where a larger than usual inflow was seen.
Thanks Do you have any idea about the radius of the accretion disc in that AGN?The inwards radius and the outwards radius?
In any case, do you agree that we clearly see outflow from that AGN?Do you also agree that our scientists have found a clear outflow by the Suzaku detector/observation?
Actually, at any detector that I have looked it was stated that they have only found outflow.
Can you please show one real detector/observation that see inflow?Even only one real inflow please.
They even say claerly that "A jet in the opposite direction is not seen".
Woah, woah, wait a minute. Now you are saying that studies using assumptions and models (which both of those articles used) are proof of something? I thought your current stance was that assumptions and models can't prove anything? Have you changed your mind all of a sudden?
You must have a poor memory, since we extensively discussed that paper which stated that an inflow moving at 30% the speed of light was detected.
However, they have only found OUTFLOWS. Not even a single word about inflow.I have also found a very interesting article:http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdfPlease look at the page before the last one
QuoteCan you please show one real detector/observation that sees inflow?Even only one real inflow please.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.09373.pdf
Can you please show one real detector/observation that sees inflow?Even only one real inflow please.
If it was falling in due to gravity, it had to set some sort of orbit.
That gas cloud cross the accretion disc and moved directly to the pole of the SMBH.
It is not gravity. It is magnetic field. From the pole it is boosted upwards as we clearly see the outwards jet stream in our galaxy.
If it was falling in, we had to see a fireworks.
So, that article doesn't proof any in falling matter.
If we could trace the wind, we should see that it should move upwards in the direction of the pole due to the magnetic field.
So, the Earth size gas cloud is actually the same wind that we see here.
As I have stated, this gas cloud is not falling inwards into the SMBH.
In any case, you have only one discovery of in falling gas cloud in the whole Universe. This galaxy is located at a distance of 1 billion LY away.That's all you have for in falling matter.
Wake up please!
The next question then becomes, are you willing to say that conclusions based on those models and assumptions are trustworthy?
As I pointed out before, if the magnetic field is too strong to let any charged matter into the black hole, then it will also be too strong to let charged matter out of the black hole. So take your pick. Is the field too strong or is it not too strong?
QuoteSo, how could it be that NASA Chandra observations see only OUTFLOW jets (in our SMBH and in many others), while arxiv (which is based on the same data from NASA Chandra observations) see suddenly Inflow?Your assumption here is that, since the particular NASA article you looked at doesn't mention inflows, they must not have detected any. Have you actually looked at the scientific paper that the article was based on? I strongly doubt you have, since the link to it from that particular website doesn't seem to allow public access to the file.
Even if the paper doesn't mention inflows, that doesn't mean that none were seen. So there is no contradiction here.
http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdfPlease look at the page before the last one
Would you kindly offer the NASA Chandra observation which arxiv have used to prove the inflow accretion in their article?
How could it be that NASA Chandra had detected any sort of inflow without giving any report on that?If NASA Chandra had detected an inflow - they must highlight this inflow observation!!!
How could it be that there is no contradiction between NASA Chandra and arxiv?
If I understand it correctly, NASA Chandra have never ever observed any inflow into the Milky way SMBH.So, how could it be that arxiv which have used the data from NASA Chandra claims that suddenly they have discovered an inflow?
The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way, which indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years.
Could it be that the unrealistic set ups/assumptions that arxiv have used, converted the Outflow observation by NASA Chandra into inflow?
So, would you kindly explain what kind of manipulation arxiv have set in NASA Chandra data/assumptions in order to convert the outflow observation that NASA Chandra had verified into an inflow?
New born particles are ejected deep from the SMBH event horizon into the accretion disc.
Those particles under the Ultra high temp (10^9c) high orbital velocity (0.3c) + electromagnetic and Fusion activity is converted into real Atoms and molecular.
Therefore, instead of 3D movement of 0.8c upwards/and inwards to the pole, we only monitor the 2D inwards movement to the pole direction.
Actually, we think that it is moving closer to the SMBH (or even falling into it) but in reality it is moving far above the SMBH).
Their mass will be used to create new gas clouds that orbit around the SMBH.In those gas clouds new stars will be formed. Each star will get planets and moons from the same matter in the gas cloud and at the same day.
Those stars will be drifted outwards and join all the other stars in the Bulge and later on in the galactic disc.
Why is it so difficult for you to see our real galaxy structure?
Why do you desperately insist for Inflow?
Says who? They might not have even known that they had such an observation. Data has to be analyzed in order to figure out what it means. They may simply have not done the necessary analysis required to find an inflow.
The articles focus on trying to spot the outflow against the bright background of the inflow radiation. It's hard to spot the jets when looking at all the X-rays due to the inflow heating the disk. The disk isn't going to stay hot by itself without energy input from stuff falling in. So it isn't a matter of trying to find the inflow (weak though it is in our galaxy). Trick is to spot the evidence of the jets despite it. And the jet has a different signature, so yes, they've been able to pick it out much of the time.
That is true, although I'm sure Dav Lev is going to try to argue that just because we see a lot of heat and X-rays, that doesn't mean it's being caused by an inflow.
Sometimes I feel like this is a pointless battle. Despite how broken his model is shown to be, he keeps insisting on it...I can't help but wonder at times if he is a troll.
He says that those particles can cross the magnetic field into the accretion disk but not the other way around. This doesn't work because magnetic fields are not one-way doors. He has consistently failed to understand how magnetism works.
QuoteHow could it be that there is no contradiction between NASA Chandra and arxiv?Because NASA never said that there wasn't an inflow. They may not have even been looking for any and didn't scan the data for it.
They say that it gives an indication to our astronomers that in the PAST (not today) "gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years"
However, astronomers (that believe in the BBT) don't like that real verified current outflow observation by NASA
I have full trust in NASA' scientists knowledge.
I know you are not a native English speaker, so perhaps I should explain this. When someone says "over the past 10 billion years", they are speaking of something that is on-going. It is something that is still happening now and has been happening for 10 billion years. If someone says "It's been raining over the past three hours", they mean it is still raining.
. Mr. Mark Morris study:That direction of the black hole's spin axis is important for another study which is totally not connected to NASA observation.
1. clear outflow observation of a jet of high-energy particles by NASA:"Astronomers have long sought strong evidence that Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, is producing a jet of high-energy particles. Finally they have found it, in new results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope."So, NASA observation have found that " the suppermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, is producing a jet of high-energy particles"2. Explanation about the impact of that outflow jet on the gas around the SMBH:"The jet appears to be running into gas near Sgr A*, producing X-rays detected by Chandra and radio emission observed by the VLA. The two key pieces of evidence for the jet are a straight line of X-ray emitting gas that points toward Sgr A* and a shock front -- similar to a sonic boom -- seen in radio data, where the jet appears to be striking the gas. Additionally, the energy signature, or spectrum, in X-rays of Sgr A* resembles that of jets coming from supermassive black holes in other galaxies."3. Outflow Jets throughout the universe at other galaxies:"Jets of high-energy particles are found throughout the universe, on large and small scales. They are produced by young stars and by black holes a thousand times larger than the Milky Way's black hole."4. The Molecular jet stream had been set by the outflow jet."Astronomers have suggested the giant bubbles of high-energy particles extending out from the Milky Way and detected by NASA's Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope in 2008 are caused by jets from Sgr A* that are aligned with the rotation axis of the galaxy. The latest results from Chandra support this explanation."
So, Scientists think that jets are produced when some material falling toward the black hole is redirected outward.However, do we see any evidence for inflow jet by NASA observation?
The answer is very clear: " A jet in the opposite direction is not seen"So, NASA didn't find any observation for inflow jet (Not even for native English speaker).
QuoteThe answer is very clear: " A jet in the opposite direction is not seen"So, NASA didn't find any observation for inflow jet (Not even for native English speaker).If you think that, then you clearly don't understand English as well as you think you do.
Yes, since that article says that matter has been migrating into Sagittarius* over the past 10 billion years.
1. "Scientists think jets are produced when some material falling toward the black hole is redirected outward."So, "Scientists think". It is very nice that they think. However, does it mean that they really see? Don't you agree that thinking is one issue and observation is totally another issue?
So, do you agree that this message doesn't gives any real observation for "material falling toward the black hole"?
2. " Since Sgr A* is presently known to be consuming very little material, it is not surprising the jet appears weak"Which jet? Is it the Inflow or outflow?
So, do you agree that the "a weak jet emanating from the black hole" is the outflow jet?
3. "A jet in the opposite direction is not seen,". If the "jet appears weak" is about outflow, than why the "A jet in the opposite direction" could not represents the inflow?If it is inflow - than it is stated clearly - "is not seen".Can you please explain what is the meaning in English for "is not seen"
Could it be that NASA see inflow but can't tell us what they see?Or, NASA just don't see any inflow?If you still assume that NASA see inflow, would you kindly explain how do you read/understand that message?
So, What do you understand from:"The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way"Do you see there any word about the Observation data?Don't you agree that the Observation data is only used to find the pointing direction of "the spin axis of Sgr A*" So, do you agree that the "study" is not the "Observation data"?Hence, the "study" indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years and not the "Observation data".However, if you still sure that the "Study" means "NASA observation data" then would you kindly explain this assumption to a person that isn't a "native English speaker".